ArticleERJ open research2026
Percentile-based
Article in ERJ open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rethinking normality in cardiopulmonary exercise testing: why percentile-based thresholds deserve a greater role.ERJ open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Determining whether a value falls within the expected range is a central step in cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) interpretation. Conventional thresholds based on absolute or percentage-predicted values are widely used but fail to capture population variability. This study evaluated the validity of percentile-based thresholds derived from the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) for a Western population and compared their impact on classification with conventional thresholds in individuals without known cardiorespiratory disease and patients with cardiorespiratory disease. Methods: We retrospectively analysed 886 maximal CPETs from 294 individuals without known cardiorespiratory disease (control group) and 592 patients with COPD, interstitial lung disease, heart failure or pulmonary hypertension. Percentile-based thresholds were evaluated for suitability by comparing abnormality rates with the expected 5% in the control group for peak oxygen uptake ( Results: Percentile-based thresholds classified 4-8% of CPETs as abnormal in the control group, consistent with the expected 5%. In patients, conventional thresholds classified up to 14% more Conclusion: The SHIP-derived percentile-based thresholds are valid for Western populations, and their application leads to substantial differences in abnormality classification of CPET results compared to conventional thresholds, especially in patients.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.